Diez: Politics, Modern Systems Theory and the Critical Purpose of IR Theory

Diez, Thomas. (2004). "Politics, Modern Systems Theory and the critical purpose of International Relations Theory". In M. Albert & L. Hilkermeier (Eds.), Observing international relations : Niklas Luhmann and world politics (pp. xiv, 254 p.). London ; New York: Routledge.

Diez sees the added value of a Modern Systems Theory (MST) approach coupled with an IR approach in the following ways: “(a) the problemetization of the nation state as the basic unit of political organization and international politics, and especially the idea that nations are normatively integrated; (b) the provision of a global framework for the analysis of an increasingly functionally organized society in which territorial demarcations become less important; and (c) the advancement of a radically constructivist epistemology, which however enables scientific engagement in the form of second-order observations” (30). Diez does not believe that there is much to gain from any of this. “My argument in this chapter is that the similarities between work loosely grouped under the ‘poststructuralim’ label and MST mean that we can do most of what MST would enable us to do on the basis of a different set of approaches that is already present in IR theory, while we would lose the critical impetus provided by poststructuralism if we bought into MST wholesale” (30-1).

He then looks at Foucault and Luhmann and agrees that there must be a project that does not strive towards universal norms and that the job of the theorist is to open space for individuals to claim their own identities. “…there is a lot more room for agency in discursive accounts of international politics if they are conceptualized in a poststructuralist frame than there is in MST” (32). MST restricts the activist positions that are possible to take with Luhmann’s approach.

“In short, my suggestion is that a Foucauldian approach is not only able to illuminate the issues for which IR theorists of a critical persuasion may want to consult Luhmann, but that it is in fact better suited to doing so, since it does not come with a whole package of rather problematic assumptions” (42). The MST approach depoliticizes theory and removes the agent, according to Diez. Foucault already provided a critique of structure and overdetermined power. Luhmann just reiterates this with more constraints and a different set of language.